Fishermen Report Illness From BP Chemicals

[highplainsdem]

Source: WDSU New Orleans

Fishermen Report Illness From BP Chemicals
Toxicologist Says Chemicals Harmful, Can Lead To Death
POSTED: 10:53 pm CDT May 19, 2010
UPDATED: 11:42 pm CDT May 19, 2010

LAFITTE, La. -- More and more stories about sick fishermen are beginning to surface after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

-snip-

Marine toxicologist Riki Ott said the chemicals used by BP can wreak havoc on a person's body and even lead to death.

"The volatile, organic carbons, they act like a narcotic on the brain," Ott said. "At high concentrations, what we learned in Exxon Valdez from carcasses of harbor seals and sea otters, it actually fried the brain, (and there were) brain lesions."

-snip-

Burris said that when he went to a doctor after feeling ill on Sunday, the doctor told him his lungs looked like those of a three-pack-a-day smoker, and Burris said he has never smoked.

Read more: http://www.wdsu.com/health/23615203/detail.html

[gimama]

1. K&R..it will effect EVERY ONE, 1 way or another.

Thank YOU for posting this.

[Divine Discontent]

5. yes - and I expect the US GOVT & the president to take full control over this immediately - it's the

biggest disaster we will face if let to BP, and it will still be the biggest disaster even if the gov't takes over, but to a lesser degree - but we need the gov't to stop BP's bullshit.

[gimama]

9. Yes! WHY has that NOT happened yet?!

Please join me in calling/emailing the WH & DC!

wow, want to see some squirmy witnesses & pissy representatives?
I'm watching the House hearing right now..reeeal interesting..
The rig was manufactured in Korea,
the "ship" is "flagged in the Marshall Island"..and bp is based in Switzerland?!
and now talking about the dispersants again..
I'm learning alot..
& it only confirms what WE ALL KNOW: bp must be removed from the scene of the crime,immediately.

[Chulanowa]

12. Because legally, they can't

Corporate law assfucks everything, unlubed. Obama can't break the law, even if it's shitty law. Basically, our laws permit BP to do whatever the fuck it wants, until incomptence or malfeasance can be legally proven. Until such a court case, BP basically has free reign and its only risk is losing consumer support and a little bit of money.

There could be an injunction filed at the state or federal level, but that would need to go through lots of flaming hoops, hostile judges, interest obstruction, all that fun shit.

It's the same thing that exxon got in 1989 - and Riki Ott has written a good book about that, "Sound Truth and Corporate Lies"

[Myrina]

23. Executive Order?

:shrug: It IS a National Emergency at this point ...

[liberation]

63. Not really... territorial ocean laws trump any corporate law

And I don't know about you, but a few billion gallons of crude roaming free around the Gulf of Mexico seem to be proof enough for the US government to act.

[Daemonaquila]

26. Oh, sure. Let's stop all the work and start fresh.

From a disaster response perspective, this is nonsense. Yes, let's remove everyone who was involved with designing and drilling that well. Yes, let's remove everyone who's has been working on stopping the gusher. Yes, let's remove the people with the industry contacts who can get equipment designed, manufactured, and delivered quickly. Yes, let's remove the people who can get disaster-critical materials into the area on a phone call to one of their vendors. And let's hand it over entirely to the government, with little expertise or experience, no industry staff, no vendor agreements, and a budget and procurement process with the dexterity of a downer cow. Wow - that would fix things up REALLY quickly.

It might even make Brownie look like he did a heck of a job.

[Yeahyeah]

31. Geepers,I couldn't tell that they were doing all that stuff."Heckuva job,BP!",says Daemonquila.

[Raster]

48. What a load of shit. No, let's not remove anyone that knows anything about this. But, by all means

escalate this to the level of NATIONAL EMERGENCY. It should no longer be a consideration if BP will remain solvent, or BP will be able to continue drilling in the Gulf, or BP fucking anything. And let's not forget, it was BP that lied about how deep they would be drilling. It was BP that lied about the safety:rofl: of the rig. It was BP that lied about their emergency contingency plans. It was BP that lied about how severe this emergency truly is. Need I continue? So are you saying we continue to allow the perpetrator of this planetary ecological nightmare the continued authority to try and fix their mistake?

[liberation]

64. Wow... be careful with the gigantic straw men there...

they may catch fire, and with all that crude around that may not be a good thing...

[JDPriestly]

37. This is not a natural disaster. BP has to pay for the clean-up.

The State of Louisiana and local authorities need to do more.

The federal government should not spend federal taxpayer money on this. This is not a natural disaster. This is a man-made accident.

If the federal government bails out BP like it bailed out the banks, who will pay? The taxpayers cannot afford this.

What federal budget items should be cut to pay for BP's accident?

[valerief]

45. Wasn't it the federal Congress who permitted them to perform such hazardous drilling in the first

place?
:shrug:

[freebrew]

49. This was no accident...

this happened through sheer negligence and greed.
The federal employees that approved the drilling operation should be in jail.
The BP officials that bribed the feds should be in jail.
The BP execs that decided to operate this way should be in jail.

An accident is when something happens that is not expected.
This same situation happened in Australia, same company, same methodology.
Why would BP expect anything different? Are they insane?

They have committed a crime against humanity. This may very well lead to some dire consequences for the planet.

[Kermitt Gribble]

51. The US Govt needs to act NOW.

BP can be sued for reimbursment afterwards. There is no time to bicker about who should pay. This disaster has the potential to destroy the Gulf of Mexico, every mile of coastline along the Gulf and east coast of the US (with the Gulf Stream).

What is going to be more costly? Paying to stop this gusher and clean it up now, or losing most of the fishing and tourism industries in the eastern half of the US later?

[JDPriestly]

55. If Obama takes charge, then the Republicans will accuse him of interfering

and messing things up.

I am usually quick to criticize Obama, but on this one, he is wisely standing aside. He did not make this mess. BP did. The American people, who refuse to cut back on energy consumption did.

The federal government does not have the money to take care of this. That's the simple truth.

The federal government does not have the equipment to handle this.

The federal government does not have the manpower to handle this.

So there.

[liberation]

65. So Obama must care first about what the GOP thinks or may say about him or his actions

and plan all his policies accordingly, no?... seems to me like a piss poor approach to leadership.

[Kermitt Gribble]

69. Congratulations. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

You're saying you're okay with the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico as long as repubs don't accuse Obama of interfering??

This is BP's mess, but it is happening in our country. It is the federal govt's duty to protect this country. The is a massive catastrophic event. The money and resources could be found if they really wanted to find them. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

So what happens if this disaster continues for another month? Would Obama still be wise to stand aside? What percentage of the Gulf needs to be filled with oil before it is acceptable for him to do something?

[lunasun]

70. Even if the gulf was completely filled , a lot of Americans

( possibly a majority) would not want the government involved and would not want US citizens to pay for the cleanup. That is just the way it is now.
Why it might add to more taxes on gas or something equally outrageous which they can not 'afford' right now.
So best to suck it in; get in the Hummer continue on and ignore it. We just have to trust in BP.


Rush said the ocean will take care of it naturally. Oil is a natural substance.

Many citizens were mad when the govmnt.got involved in other industries and don't want the USA to 'own' an oil company, or it's current problems now.

Why look at that commie in Venezuela I mean is that what we want? to own an oil company and its problems now??? Does the Obama admin. honestly think they know better than the experts at BP??

Boy the president really must think he is some kind of miracle worker. HA! What audacity and pseudo-blasphemy too. How irreverent can he be to think he can clear the waters when BP can't ???

The free market and the benevolent private oil company who has the best knowledge of what is best to do can handle it with out getting the government involved . When the government gets involved in a private enterprise's business it only leads to no good ...right???:sarcasm:

[amborin]

75. +1

[felinetta]

41. I emailed the WH 2 days ago and said they better get these workers biohazard gear. BP will not

give them what they need.  It will make BP look bad and show
it to be extremely dangerous.
Here's my plan: give the workers the proper safety gear and
then let the BP, Halliburton,
Trans-ocean, crooked pols etc. stand on these work sites
without proper gear. They can be like canaries in a coal mine.

[Mark D.]

59. BP

Should foot the entire bill. For stopping this, and cleaning it up. Litigation for it, caps, and all that other crap, even the clean up, are secondary. Stopping the leak is priority one. It's not enough if the president takes charge. THIS IS A WORLD EMERGENCY. Now every nation, every large corporation, every engineer, anyone with even a remote thing to offer as a solution, or to join in the work, should be swarming in now like bees defending the hive (our oceans) against a bear (the spill). Once it's capped, all of that effort, 100%, on cleanup in a non-toxic manner. It's that simple. The president must go to the UN and demand they orchestrate this world action now.

[flamingdem]

2. BP used the dispersent BANNED in ENGLAND

the BP American whore spokesperson dodged Anderson Cooper's questions tonight. Too bad Andersen didn't mention the BANNING

Oh but he did know that a CEO of BP sits on the board of the dispersant's company, nice! $$$$$

[Lorien]

7. A fact that deserves a thread of it's own. nt

[polichick]

19. Did our EPA allow that? Where is the gov't? nt

[Yeahyeah]

30. Seems like an attack on our waters.Is anyone in charge here?

[wordpix]

78. Yes, the international corporatist BigOil machine is in charge

Didn't you figure that out yet? :puke:

[mod mom]

33. yes...please start a thread on this!

[unapatriciated]

50. I saw that too and was disappointed that he didn't name the CEO in question.

When BP spokesperson stated he had no knowledge of who that CEO was, Cooper should have named him.

[IndianaGreen]

67. Story about banned chemicals was posted in GD-P, and totally ignored

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x303474

I kicked it with this OP.

[wordpix]

79. no doubt they dumped toxics on their hands that previously, they didn't know how to "disperse"

FUCKERS just dumped it on Gulf of Mexico since they killed it anyway with their oil.

The tragedy is the fucking EPA and Interior allowed it.

[Journeyman]

3. One month on and this occurs with those in closest proximity on the open sea. . .

what will life (or death) be like for those on shore when this toxic soup begins to make land. . .

[thecrow]

4. Very clever how BP "hired" the fishermen right off, too.

And the fishermen, eager to work and help clean up the mess, jumped right in.
I wonder if they were offered health care benefits?

This is such a fuckup every which way you look at it.

[global1]

21. Hire Them - Get Them To Use A Dispersant That Could Kill Them.......

string out the litigation until they are dead = not having to pay out $'s in compensation for not being able to fish.

Solves another BP problem.

Think of the men that worked at ground zero and how many of them are sick or have died since then. Weren't the towers filled with asbestos?

[glowing]

73. Yes, which is why the new "owner" wasn't allowed to implode the towers

to build new buildings on the site.. It would be too deadly to demolish.. if they wanted the trade towers down, it would have to go piece by piece. Neat how they came down without the safety regs they would normally have had to adhere to.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. "the Exxon Valdez Crud," was a real aliment

"During the 1989 cleanup in Alaska, thousands of workers had what Exxon medical doctors called, "the Valdez Crud," and dismissed as simple colds and flu. Fourteen years later, I followed the trail of sick workers through the maze of court records, congressional records, obituaries, and media stories, and made hundreds of phone calls. I found a different story. As one former cleanup worker put it, "I thought I had the Valdez Crud in 1989. I didn't think I'd have it for fourteen years."

In 1989 Exxon knew cleanup workers were getting sick: Exxon's clinical data shows 6,722 cases of upper respiratory "infections"--or more likely work-related chemical induced illnesses. Exxon also knew workers were being overexposed to oil vapors and oil particles as verified through its air-quality monitoring program contracted to Med-Tox. The cleanup workers never saw results of this program. Neither did OSHA, the agency supposedly charged to oversee and independently monitor Exxon's worker-safety program."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/at-what-cost-bp-...

[KT2000]

8. Riki Ott is doing great work

Our government better support her work.

[BelgianMadCow]

85. I read top quality info from her on dispersant / plumes in Belgian press

it was very lengthy, very scary, and I contemplated translating it. But the dispersant did get covered pretty widely over with you - including that it's banned in the UK.

[BelgianMadCow]

86. BEGS the question - and how many has been used? (really, not BPBSfigures)

Even their figures are astounding. Maybe another reason to not replace Corexit even when ordered - another supplier which is not a semi-subsidiary may be hard to control in terms of numbers.

[gimama]

10. "So Arsenic is now in our food chain, right?"

I'm watching the House hearing on the c-span..
Rep.Steven Kagen (d-WI) just grilled McKay(bp),
got him to admit the dispersants they HAD to use(banned elsewhere)
contain arsenic.. then McKay had to admit we now have this in the Gulf,& in OUR FOOD SUPPLY.

edit quote to "chain",not "supply" as I 1st posted

[Divine Discontent]

11. yeah, real freakin great! arsenic in the Gulf! BP needs fined til they fold & the guys that

wouldn't allow the transocean guys to pour the stuff down the well to cap it or whatever, need put in prison.

Whatever the worst they can do to BP - they need to do NOW. This is, again, what I am getting from the several reports I can stomach to read, the biggest disaster in the oceans around us - by far.

[amerfayed]

46. not just the gulf...

[Hubert Flottz]

13. Do those fishermen have boots?

They need to pull themselves up by their boot straps. :sarcasm:

[jimlup]

14. Houston we have a problem!

We're in trouble here folks. If the "mud" back fill doesn't work we need to get a better engineering team advising the BP team and the BP execs need to be taken out of the loop.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

15. But BP (Beyond Prosecution) assured us that the spill would only have a minor impact.

These people need to share a small cell with Ken Blankenship and all of the other corporate talking heads putting profits above human, other animal and plant life.

And ONCE AGAIN on TV this morning I heard some reporter say that the spill was leaking 5,000 gallons of poison each day.

Ahem....... first of all it's 5,000 barrels each day and second of all, BP is the only entity making that claim. The experts not facing lawsuits all seem to agree that it's as much as 95,000 barrels each day.

Way to do your job "Liberal Media".:mad: :banghead:

[txwhitedove]

17. One U.S . Barrel equals 42 gallons, sooo.....

That's 210,000 gallons a day..., at least.


:cry:

[no_hypocrisy]

16. How do "they" plan to "clean" an oil slick that's more than 100 miles and several hundred

feet deep when you can't get near it due to the dangerous fumes?

I've changed my mind. I'm now thinking that BP's penalty should be more than money. The executives should be personally "cleaning up" their toxic mess and breathing in the fine sea air.

[Hubert Flottz]

20. BP Bob sez...

"It Don't Mean Nothin'!"

[polichick]

18. Meanwhile Shell is about to start drilling off Alaska - this admin. doesn't get it yet. nt

[voteearlyvoteoften]

22. rec

worse to come

[Magleetis]

24. The government and BP

are one in the same. This is a perfect illustration of how corporations run the country. Carlin was right. We are all fucked.

[FirstLight]

25. Someone mentioned the air quality after 9-11

and how the govt said it wasn't bad for people...

here we go again, eh?


...ya, and if the fishermen who are in boats and just *near* the water are so badly affected...then what about the fish & birds and wildlife that is IN the water...?

makes me so ill just *thinking* about it.

[enki23]

27. Not to defend BP. (I'm not). But this almost certainly refers to the oil itself.

Not, as the reporter ambiguously seems to have claimed, due to "BP chemicals".

[Starckers]

32. Oil Spill

Agreed that this sounds more like the oil than anything else. 
And this from Fisherman who breathe in diesel fumes all the
time.  In one month you cannot get these problems, it would be
a chronic (Over time) issue.  Dispersants are usually very
benign.  Dish-washing detergent and liquid soaps are
dispersants.  I doubt there is arsenic as why would it be
there?  No need in a dispersant.  Also, if banned elsewhere
could really mean not approved, and that is a different kettle
of fish (Pun intended.)

[Oilwellian]

38. Brilliant reply-NOT

Also, if banned elsewhere could really mean not approved, and that is a different kettle of fish (Pun intended.)

Are you saying something fucking banned in the UK could be approved in the future? Why do you suppose it was banned in the first place? Your comment makes no sense and makes my head hurt.

[Starckers]

58. Banned in England

There is a difference between banned and not approved.  That
is all.

[liberation]

66. Indeed, the difference being that "banned" has a much stronger connotation than "not approved"

you tool.

[Oilwellian]

36. Apparently you missed this paragraph in the article

Marine toxicologist Riki Ott said the chemicals used by BP can wreak havoc on a person's body and even lead to death.

"The volatile, organic carbons, they act like a narcotic on the brain," Ott said. "At high concentrations, what we learned in Exxon Valdez from carcasses of harbor seals and sea otters, it actually fried the brain, (and there were) brain lesions."

[enki23]

43. I didn't "miss" that at all. I think the reporter screwed it up.

Not at all unusual in anything vaguely related to science reporting. I may be wrong, obviously, but I sincerely doubt it. There are plenty of volatile organics coming off the oil itself, and in vastly larger quantities. That doesn't mean the corexit is great, mind you. And it may be the case that it contains something that's more specifically toxic than the already toxic stuff coming off the oil spill itself. But this reporter didn't make any attempt whatsoever to differentiate that, or give any indication he or she would know what he or she was talking about in any case.

If, as is widely reported, corexit is little more than deodorized kerosene, then what they're doing is simply adding more light fraction oil to the oil spill to help disperse it. Like adding paint thinner to oil based paint. But there's a whole lot more oil coming out, and a whole lot more light fraction oil coming out, than is being added as a dispersant. You can be sure of that. So... the real exposure risk with the dispersant itself would be for the people actually applying it, or who entered an area shortly after it was applied to the surface (where, presumably, no fishermen should ever be). If proper caution and protection isn't being provided to those spill workers at risk of significant exposure, from the ongoing spill or from the corexit product, that's another issue entirely.

[Ichingcarpenter]

42. 'Chemicals used to clean up the spill' Read the article

So yes you are defending BP by speaking out of lazy ignorance

[wordpix]

80. don't count on it---I don't trust them with their dispersant, & dispersants + oil= DISASTER

both for human and environmental health

[barbtries]

28. i'm getting more and more pissed

the more i hear, see and read. BP should be put out of business, NOW. is there any avenue to make this happen?

[Bragi]

52. A forceful President could do it

I'm not saying that I think the President should right now decide that his top priority is to put BP out of business. If BP is collateral damage, then so be it, but its ruination ought not be the main driver for Presidential action. He needs to focus on a) stopping and responding properly to this blowout; and b) pausing all offshore drilling permissions immediately, pending a look at what goes back into operation and when.

That would send the right signal to industry and the public. Operations would come back based on being a) low risk, and/or b) have proper blowout prevention and cleanup plans, processes, equipment, etc in place, and/or c) are in areas of relatively reduced environmental sensitivity. Some operations would be back and operational in a few days, some may be closed for good because the risk isn't worth it, those that remain will have implemented what is to be learned from this blowout.

I think that's what FDR would do here, and then he'd publicly tell the industry that if they don't like that, to come and get him, but be ready for a fight.

- B

[barbtries]

53. well, the president is who i wrote to today.

if not put them out of business, at least get them out of the way and then deal (at their expense) with the catastrophe they caused. in a fair and just way.

[avaistheone1]

29. Hell these chemicals actually fried the brains of harbor seals and sea otters.

I hate to think about what these same chemicals can do to humans.

[Javaman]

34. Hitting mercury with a hammer...

BP = stumbling morons.

using evil means to clean up an evil mess. How does good come from that?

[defendandprotect]

35. Hearings yesterday were discussing some of this . . . but . ..

was unable to pay sufficient attention -- however, obviously, if any one has

any feeling that we were in any way prepared, either for this spill or to judge

these chemicals, think again---!!

Seems all recommendations to study these chemicals over decades has been ignored.

[wordpix]

81. i won't be surprised if BP got rid of some years-old toxics they had on hand

and couldn't dispose of properly without a large cost. So dump them on the Gulf in the name of "dispersing" the oil. Great move, Blowout Phelons

[louis-t]

39. The only solace I have right now?

Driving by empty BP stations. Everywhere. Their prices at about half the stations are 20 cents higher than other stations. People are staying away.

[wordpix]

82. there's a boycott going on, see Facebook here

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-BP/119101198107726

[benld74]

40. Shoe Drop Number 3,,, ANOTHER ITEM THEY KNEW ABOUT!!!

[femrap]

44. Holy crap.....

next a hurricane and all these deathly chemicals will be in Arkansas!

Who makes these chemicals, I wonder. Monsanto? The Corp/Gov are going to kill us all.

I can see these stupid CEOs now....'I still think shooting a bunch of golf balls into the hole is a great idea!" What is it with these dudes and f*cking golf???

Next the ugly white dude CEO says, 'OK, maybe we should have used basketballs..they're bigger, after all. Or maybe bowling balls, but that seemed so working class. Let's move on to the real thing, boyz...Bring on the nukes!'

[enki23]

47. Here's the MSDS for the corexit 9500

http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf

The part people are focusing on are the "distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light". That's the part they're calling "deodorized kerosene". What it is, is basically light aliphatic fraction of oil (or what's now a light fraction after they cracked the heavier stuff, etc.). That makes up 10-30 percent on a w/w basis. Five percent (or less) is propylene glycol, otherwise known to most people as the relatively nontoxic antifreeze. Another ten to thirty percent is made up by the one proprietary chemical in the mixture. That one is going to be a sulfonate detergent of some sort. That one is the only unknown in the mix. That's probably the part that should have toxicologists saying "hmm", though that shouldn't be a significant inhalation risk for the workers. The light fraction aliphatics (i.e. "kerosone") people are talking about is not going to cause any problems different from those caused by the volatile organics in the oil in the first place.

Now, most of the volatile organics are going to come off the oil spill relatively quickly). Once the slick is a decent distance from the origin, most of the volatiles will have been lost. So, if you were to treat the slick at that point with the corexit product (or treat the shorelines, etc., as well, obviously) then you would be adding a source of those light hydrocarbons that wouldn't be there anymore. That's true. However, the volatiles that will evaporate from this product will *also* be fairly quickly lost.

For the guys actually working in the cleanup, there may indeed be an exposure risk. Whether to the petroleum distillates in this product, or to the volatiles from the slick itself. Depending on where they're working. Much like someone using paint thinner in his or her basement, such things should only be undertaken by people with proper protective gear and knowledge of how to use it. That's not necessarily a problem with the product, though it may well be a problem with the worker protections being used with it.

EDIT: The other corexit product they're using (I haven't seen anything mentioning relative amounts of these) is corexit 9527a. http://lmrk.org/master_ec9527a_msds.539295.pdf

This one contains 2-butoxyethanol, an important cleaner in Windex and Simple Green. This would have some significant advantages, in terms of aquatic toxicology, in that it seems to be rapidly biodegraded. However, it can have toxic effects with large respiratory exposures. Once again, this might actually be a *good* product in an environmental sense. That may not mean it's completely safe to use it without proper protective equipment, or other means of managing worker exposures. I would certainly hope they're keeping pregnant women from being significantly exposed, given the possible teratogenic effects. If it's being applied entirely underwater, however, I really doubt there is much risk of significant exposure for most workers. Exposure risk would *probably* be limited mostly to those directly involved in handling and delivery. The stuff is very miscible in water, and being piped in deep under water.

[Blue Diadem]

54. followup 8 yrs later after Spain had large oil spill...genetic damage too

I read this a few weeks ago and wondered if people helping in the Gulf tragedy were wearing protective breathing masks and other protective equipment.

http://mw.cnn.com/snarticle?c=cnnd_latest&p=0&aId=20100509:spain.black.tide:1

snip: Today, locals point to the rocky beach at Cuña. Despite nearly eight years of wind, surf and rain, thick black tar still clings to the rocks.

Snip: A 2006 study by Spain's University of La Coruna concluded that volunteers working on the oil slick clean-up showed evidence of "an increase in the level of genetic damage in blood cells." Researchers also detected higher levels of heavy metals in these volunteers, similar to tobacco smokers. The study concluded that clean-up crews were provided with inadequate face masks and protective gear to protect them from airborne contaminants.

Other researchers have found evidence of tumors and genetic mutations in some of the shellfish growing along the Galician coast.

[chrisa]

56. In a perfect world...

Obama would call for the arrest of the leadership of BP, as well as any and all leadership that not only stalled this disaster from being fixed, but are also pumping highly-toxic chemicals into the water in an attempt to make the oil less visible. The Gulf of Mexico is ruined.

So, are BP executives being halled off in chains? NO. OF COURSE THEY AREN'T. What did you expect, you bleeding-heart commies? This is Amurika.

Only a Libural Hippie Commie would want accountability for a company that is purposely poisoning the water supply so that the BP leadership can keep their riches. Screw all of those little peasants who will be affected by these toxins. They're all poor! We can do whatever we want to them! They're ours to step over!

And the US Government? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Come and get us! No wait! You can't! We own you! We say jump, and you little minions say "How High?" If we didn't finance your campaigns, you wouldn't have even been able to run. You got to play ball if you want to get in. You know how it goes by now! You can go in the media and pretend to be outraged - we'll give you that. But you have to fall to your knees and kiss our feet behind closed doors. That's the way it goes. This is a Monarchy, and we're the Kings. Don't fight us. We've got all of the resources. We own the biggest Democracy that money can buy. You've got shit. Don't try. We'll make you regret it.

Even the Coast Guard is operating under BP's orders. The United States is a laughing stock of the world, and a dangerous one at that. We're willing to completely destroy the environment for our children so that we can live in luxury - that is, until the environment starts fighting back by leaving us depleted of resources. Then we'll tragically ponder our stupidity as we die in droves.

[alp227]

57. Notice something in common? Health insurance industry opposed health care reform,

while the oil industry doesn't care about the environment.

I think at this rate BP's assets should be donated to the US government and to the families of everyone who's been fallen ill by the oil spill.

[Stuart G]

60. It will get much much worse. It is gushing out..right now as your read this or ignore this, nt.

[amborin]

61. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

62. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, highplainsdem.

[sandyj999]

68. What have we (humans) done? :(

[defendandprotect]

71. Evidently, EPA approved a dispersant they're now worried about . . . and want BP to . . .

use something "less toxic." -- !!!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/20-9



:eyes:

[troubledamerican]

72. 1930s Oklahoma Dustbowl mass-migration: REDUX

Get ready for mass-exodus from the Gulf Coast. To where? Hopefully not California's already imploding house of cards

[amborin]

74. they're carcinogenic, too;

[Dear Maggie]

76. What doctors should consider for sick 'gulf oil cleanup' workers

2-butoxyethanol, a glycol ether, is common to both EVOS and this Gulf cleanup.
AND may I add, the biggest mistake made during both the Exxon Valdez Oil spill cleanup & NOW!

What I would say to fishermen sick:

Taking care of your family could also mean NOT working on the cleanup. The most hazardous component of the Corexit is 2-butoxyethanol (an often used glycol ether) at 38% by one account. Those you love can be exposed second hand. As you breathe out the molecules of glycol ether in your respiration, it gets into the eyes of your loved ones & they become exposed also. What to look for when someone is harmed by dispersant of oil spill (Glycol ether exposure): is there blood in urine? Are red blood cells ragged and beat up? Is there elevated retic rate at 2.5 days after first flu symptoms?

http://www.valdezlink.com/re/gulf/health/5-26-10.htm

[wordpix]

77. Why TF did the feds allow use of toxic dispersants on top of the toxic oil spill?

EVERYTHING will be dead there for decades

[Dear Maggie]

83. a travesty

You are so right; how can we blame BP for using a dispersant that was on the EPA and Coast Guard approved list for oil spill cleanup?

These chemicals should be banned and some day they will be. Right now all we can hope Congress will do is to legislate that they be disclosed in all products (Not safe in many home cleaning products, either)

You also have to be concerned about the wind blowing the vapors of butyl ether (2-butoxyethanol) in Corexit towards the population centers. Primary route of exposure is vapors in one's eyes. People will probably notice their eyes burning and stinging.

Not only that, but MSDS info on 2-butoxyethanol says, "This substance may be hazardous to the environment; special attention should be given to the water environment and aquifer."

And I think such chemicals contribute significantly to global warming. Note what is formed when glycol ether 'breaks down'

http://www.valdezlink.com/re/gulf/dispersants.htm


http://www.valdezlink.com/re/gulf/waters.htm

[wordpix]

84. Letter from Rep Markey to FDA re: Corexit (toxic dispersant used)

http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/letters?id=0044#main_content

snip: To date, BP has used approximately 705,000 gallons of a trademarked dispersant called Corexit on the ocean surface and approximately 115,000 gallons of the dispersant subsurface, at the source of the spill. According to EPA , the Corexit products selected are among the most toxic and least effective dispersants approved for use. Some Corexit formulations were banned in the United Kingdom more than a decade ago because of their toxicity to some aquatic life.

I am concerned that because these toxic chemicals were not intended to be used for such long durations, and were not intended to be used at such depths, there could be serious and unknown long-term consequences for the marine ecosystem, the food chain and human health. snip

snip: EPA recognizes the environmental tradeoffs that results from the use of these chemicals, which is why they have directed BP to identify and utilize a less toxic and more effective product and dedicated its own scientists to assist in these efforts.

Despite this directive, BP continues to insist on the use of its choice Corexit dispersant. The truth is we know little about the long-term ecological effects of the use of any dispersants, and how these dispersants may, as result of contaminating the aquatic food chain, also impact human health.

[Dear Maggie]

87. Worst component of dispersants is Anti-Freeze

Why dispersant use is a big mistake

It is like adding massive amounts of anti freeze (ethylene glycol) to the oil

The worst component of dispersants is often glycol ether such as 2-butoxyethanol. It will add a lot of carbons & hydrogens to the water, too and maybe suffocate the sea life eventually. But first it will cause the immune system to turn autoimmune. This is the worst possible thing to do. For sick workers doing cleanup look for blood in urine as one of the signs of hemolytic anemia. These may die if it is not realized that the red blood cells are dying off too soon (cause of weakness) & there is risk for organs shutting down. Any time you hear of 'flu symptoms' suspect glycol ether poisoning (not a virus) http://www.valdezlink.com/re/gulf/health/5-26-10.htm

Worse than the oil spill is the use of the dispersants that are so strong in glycol ether. Not yet recognized, it is glycol ether that causes flu symptoms Exposure to glycol ether + anemia signs  (NOT a virus). It is the cause of most military syndromes, CFIDS, CFS, FM. It causes a body to turn autoimmune and the weakness sick workers are describing is the red blood cells dying off prematurely. There will be blood in urine, if so. AIHA is the fatigue doctors are looking for in the CFS type symptoms. Too many things start going autoimmune at once, and the numbers don't mean what doctors think they do. Please pass this on to any doctors in the area, and hope the wind doesn't blow in your direction. http://www.valdezlink.com/re/gulf/why.htm All ingredients should be disclosed, and doctors must be told, if they suspect it is a cause of a patient's illness. There are laws that need to be changed, by the way.

http://www.valdezlink.com/re/gulf/health/antifreeze.htm